Jackson and Grant on U.S. Money.

[_Ava]

I’m fine with discussing the shortfallings of our forefathers, but I don’t want to erase them from traditional, symbolic use because they don’t measure up to today’s moral standards. I sure don’t want Ronald Reagan to replace Hamilton on money (even though my senator does).

BTW, there are a lot of people on stamps who aren’t good role models. Marilyn Monroe? :rolleyes:

[Liberal]

I hold nothing against men who were merely products of a different zeitgeist. I think no less of Jefferson for owning slaves even though it was, by today’s standards, an ethical abomination. But even in his own time, murder was bad. If he had murdered his slaves, I would hold him in contempt — just as I do Indian Hater Jackson.

[EEMan]

@Liberal

I hold nothing against men who were merely products of a different zeitgeist. I think no less of Jefferson for owning slaves even though it was, by today’s standards, an ethical abomination. But even in his own time, murder was bad. If he had murdered his slaves, I would hold him in contempt — just as I do Indian Hater Jackson.

He didn’t murder anyone… and the ‘murders’ you are so against happened after he left office…

Can we blame Bush Sr. for the policies in Yugoslavia, under Clinton? I mean sure he had a strong stance internationally… but… the blood on the hands have to have a link…

Jackson wasn’t a friend to the natives… but if you are giving a pass for owning slaves (something that WAS wildly unpopular in some areas at the time) and NOT for expansion or removal of the natives (something that was considered as necessary by most, as owning slaves)…

What Jackson set in motion was relocating people… and yes, that was bad… and YES he disliked those people PURELY because of their culture… BUT… it was neither uncommon NOR considered UN-warrented at the time … then the man who came after him actually REMOVED those peoples… and used tactics that SURE you could place their deaths on his head… BUT… they were NOT Jackson’s orders…

We can blame Fredrick the Great for Hitler …as Freddy set up some terrible precidents… but for god sake, that doesn’t make him directly responsible NOR give leave to Hitler

[Stonebow]

@Liberal

I hold nothing against men who were merely products of a different zeitgeist. I think no less of Jefferson for owning slaves even though it was, by today’s standards, an ethical abomination. But even in his own time, murder was bad. If he had murdered his slaves, I would hold him in contempt — just as I do Indian Hater Jackson.

This, I simply don’t understand. If anything, my position would be the reverse. Though, for what it’s worth, I don’t see a lot of difference between multi-generational chattel slavery and straight-up murder (if we accept that Jackson’s actions qualify as such).

That does raise one question for me, though- was there much debate on whether the Cherokee should be removed? Or, as in Ava’s suggestion, was this simply the prevailing political will at the time?

[EEMan]

@Stonebow

This, I simply don’t understand. If anything, my position would be the reverse. Though, for what it’s worth, I don’t see a lot of difference between multi-generational chattel slavery and straight-up murder (if we accept that Jackson’s actions qualify as such).

That does raise one question for me, though- was there much debate on whether the Cherokee should be removed? Or, as in Ava’s suggestion, was this simply the prevailing political will at the time?

This is for a bit of a biased article (the title of which is ‘Jackson the Worst President the Cherokee ever met’)

It is important, when looking at these events in history, to remember that Andrew Jackson did not work alone. While there was some resistance to his Indian Removal actions, there was a lot of support. The United States voters who voted for Jackson because of his pro-Removal stance are also responsible. Some people considered Indian Removal a humanitarian gesture to help isolate the Indians from encroachment, but many others simply wanted more land. Davy Crockett who opposed the bill was ruined politically and left politics and Tennessee for Texas (where he died in the Alamo).

source

Something to watch out for in the article…

1. The Cherokee helped fight other ‘Indians’… (something of note… the Cherokee Nations did what the US did… that is they ‘removed’ other Indian nations for their land, through a series of wars, going back many many generations… that does not make it ‘right’… but the idea of a unified ‘indian’ population is farce, at best)

2. There is no seperation between Jackson and Van Buren presidencies…

[2sense]

@*Ava*

I’m fine with discussing the shortfallings of our forefathers, but I don’t want to erase them from traditional, symbolic use because they don’t measure up to today’s moral standards. I sure don’t want Ronald Reagan to replace Hamilton on money (even though my senator does).

I’m no Reagan fan either but it seems to me that weakening or even eliminating our traditional adulation of the Founders could be of great benefit. Instead of a society reliant on mythic yet morally reprehensible historical figures we might have one based on reason. But really, that’s straying from the topic. What I was saying was not that we should eliminate the use of historical figures on our currency but just that we find some that fit our modern conception of acceptable behavior. Dr King has been mentioned. Someone like Hellen Keller would be a great symbol as well.

Just my 2sense

[EEMan]

Dr King has been mentioned. Someone like Hellen Keller would be a great symbol as well.

You do know that they both had their issues as well?

[Ludovic]

@*Ava*

Um, maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t it the policy of every single early white prominent american to “remove” the indians? Yes, it’s horrible, but it happened, and no one’s hands were clean, so to disqualify an early american politician on that basis would leave who exactly?

You may be right, but even if you are, the Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that not all prominent, educated citizens favored Indian removal. If all politicians did favor it, then that is evidence to indeed issue a blanket condemnation of them rather than okay it for everyone.

[Liberal]

@EEMan

He didn’t murder anyone… and the ‘murders’ you are so against happened after he left office…

That canard has already been debunked. Please see the article linked previously.

Can we blame Bush Sr. for the policies in Yugoslavia, under Clinton? I mean sure he had a strong stance internationally… but… the blood on the hands have to have a link…

That depends. Did Bush Sr. tell the Supreme Court to go to hell, hand pick Clinton to succeed him, and badger Clinton relentlessly from his Texas home to carry out his agenda?

Jackson wasn’t a friend to the natives… but if you are giving a pass for owning slaves (something that WAS wildly unpopular in some areas at the time) and NOT for expansion or removal of the natives (something that was considered as necessary by most, as owning slaves)…

You’ve mutilated the analogy. Purchasing a slave is not the same as kidnapping an African from his home, forcing him into a boat, starving him half to death on the journey, and tossing his family’s corpses into the ocean. I do not fault people who bought the land and property stolen from the Cherokee, but I damn sure fault the pillagers, thieves, and murderers who created the market.

What Jackson set in motion was relocating people… and yes, that was bad… and YES he disliked those people PURELY because of their culture… BUT… it was neither uncommon NOR considered UN-warrented at the time … then the man who came after him actually REMOVED those peoples… and used tactics that SURE you could place their deaths on his head… BUT… they were NOT Jackson’s orders…

You have given a whole new meaning to the word “relocate”. I’ll try to be mindful that, when speaking with you, by relocate you mean “kidnapping people at gun point, holding them in prison, stripping them of dignity and property, forcing them to hike 800 miles, depriving them of food and medicine, and dropping them off in a barren, rock-strewn desert.”

We can blame Fredrick the Great for Hitler …as Freddy set up some terrible precidents… but for god sake, that doesn’t make him directly responsible NOR give leave to Hitler

You can blame Adam and Eve for Hitler for all I care. But Indian Hater Jackson’s final solution was his Indian Removal Act.

[Liberal]

@Stonebow

This, I simply don’t understand. If anything, my position would be the reverse. Though, for what it’s worth, I don’t see a lot of difference between multi-generational chattel slavery and straight-up murder (if we accept that Jackson’s actions qualify as such).

Please see the explanation of my reasoning that I gave to EEMan.

That does raise one question for me, though- was there much debate on whether the Cherokee should be removed? Or, as in Ava’s suggestion, was this simply the prevailing political will at the time?

I assure you that, among the Cherokee, there was very little debate. The 79 people who favored it and voted for it were traitorous leeches who sold their souls.

[Stonebow]

@Liberal

Please see the explanation of my reasoning that I gave to EEMan.

I assure you that, among the Cherokee, there was very little debate. The 79 people who favored it and voted for it were traitorous leeches who sold their souls.

I had sort of assumed that consensus existed among the Cherokee. My question had more to do with the political will of the US at the time. My understanding is that the Cherokee held a lot more land than they could defend. What makes this fundamentally different than its European counterparts? Not saying that it’s right, but wouldn’t it be SOP? Nations expand as much as they can without disintegrating, or until something (or someone) stops them. Do you think that the same outcome would have occurred if the Cherokee were a nation in the classical sense?

[Spoke]

@Liberal

I hold nothing against men who were merely products of a different zeitgeist. I think no less of Jefferson for owning slaves even though it was, by today’s standards, an ethical abomination. But even in his own time, murder was bad. If he had murdered his slaves, I would hold him in contempt — just as I do Indian Hater Jackson.

Interesting. Jefferson was an early proponent of removal of the eastern tribes beyond the Mississippi. Does this change your view?

@Stonebow

That does raise one question for me, though- was there much debate on whether the Cherokee should be removed? Or, as in Ava’s suggestion, was this simply the prevailing political will at the time?

There were a number of politicians who opposed the policy, notably Heny Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of New Hampshire, and Davy Crockett of Tennessee.

Crockett’s support of the rights of Indians probably cost him his seat in Congress. Upon losing his seat, Crockett is supposed to have remarked “You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.” You might therefore argue that Crockett’s righteous opposition to Cherokee removal indirectly got him killed, since we all know how that trip to Texas turned out.

[Liberal]

@Stonebow

I had sort of assumed that consensus existed among the Cherokee. My question had more to do with the political will of the US at the time. My understanding is that the Cherokee held a lot more land than they could defend. What makes this fundamentally different than its European counterparts? Not saying that it’s right, but wouldn’t it be SOP? Nations expand as much as they can without disintegrating, or until something (or someone) stops them. Do you think that the same outcome would have occurred if the Cherokee were a nation in the classical sense?

The Cherokee were a nation in the classical sense. A man in a robe said that they weren’t, and then a man in a uniform manipulated men who make speeches to draw up his declaration of Cherokee inhumanity. (The Indian-type metaphors were fun! :D)

Lots of people hold more land than they can defend. I do. I can’t watch every acre, and even if I could, I couldn’t fend off twenty men with rifles. That’s what government is for — to secure the rights of people in its borders. If people invade my land, I call the cops. Chief Ross went on behalf of his people to the very head cop, and was rather rudely dismissed.

[Liberal]

@spoke-

Interesting. Jefferson was an early proponent of removal of the eastern tribes beyond the Mississippi. Does this change your view?

My view of what? I hold not only that against Jefferson, but also his his purchase of Louisiana.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Liberal

I assure you that, among the Cherokee, there was very little debate. The 79 people who favored it and voted for it were traitorous leeches who sold their souls.

That’s really not fair, at least not for all of them. You may challenge their decision, or the wisdom of it, but there’s no evidence that they acted with anything other than good motives. Look at Buck Watie. What did he gain from the treaty? He lost his position as editor of the Phoenix, lost his home, and lost his life. And why? Because, in his words:

I am induced to believe there is danger, “immediate and appalling,” and it becomes the people of this country to weigh the matter rightly, act wisely, not rashly, and choose a course that will come nearest benefiting the nation.

And for him, the answer was the treaty.

[Stonebow]

@Liberal

Lots of people hold more land than they can defend. I do. I can’t watch every acre, and even if I could, I couldn’t fend off twenty men with rifles. That’s what government is for — to secure the rights of people in its borders. If people invade my land, I call the cops. Chief Ross went on behalf of his people to the very head cop, and was rather rudely dismissed.

Didn’t the Cherokee have a special status? Something about being a sovereign nation under the protection of the US or something like that? I’m not trying to be obtuse, but it seems that they occupied some sort of third space. It’s members were not citizens of the US, so who in their right mind thought that the US would favor them over their own citizens? Did the Cherokee have any sort of ‘armed forces’ that it could employ? Not that they could have held off the US army, but maybe hold off squatters, so that the effort to defend them didn’t seem like a futile gesture (as alluded to in previous quotes)?

Just for the record, I think that their treatment was despicable…but it does fall under ‘shit that happened in early America, like slavery’ for me. Jackson occupies a space, in my mind, similar to Jefferson, et al. What makes him stand out in your mind? I understand that you have some emotional connection to this episode in history, but is there anything you can impart to those of us less touched by the tragedy?

[Liberal]

@Captain Amazing

That’s really not fair, at least not for all of them. You may challenge their decision, or the wisdom of it, but there’s no evidence that they acted with anything other than good motives. Look at Buck Watie. What did he gain from the treaty? He lost his position as editor of the Phoenix, lost his home, and lost his life. And why? Because, in his words:

And for him, the answer was the treaty.

People can see history differently. The Watie clan (including Buck) favored removal because they had already moved themselves and their slaves. They did not die for any just cause; they were executed for treason (or betrayal, as the tribe would have said). They were seen as such traitors that their assassination was ordered. Only Stand Watie survived. And even he could not resist one last act of treason, siding against the eastern Cherokee in the War of Northern Aggression.

[Liberal]

@Stonebow

Didn’t the Cherokee have a special status? Something about being a sovereign nation under the protection of the US or something like that? I’m not trying to be obtuse, but it seems that they occupied some sort of third space. It’s members were not citizens of the US, so who in their right mind thought that the US would favor them over their own citizens? Did the Cherokee have any sort of ‘armed forces’ that it could employ? Not that they could have held off the US army, but maybe hold off squatters, so that the effort to defend them didn’t seem like a futile gesture (as alluded to in previous quotes)?

Please see the link I gave earlier to the American History magazine article. It deals in depth with your questions.

Just for the record, I think that their treatment was despicable…but it does fall under ‘shit that happened in early America, like slavery’ for me. Jackson occupies a space, in my mind, similar to Jefferson, et al. What makes him stand out in your mind? I understand that you have some emotional connection to this episode in history, but is there anything you can impart to those of us less touched by the tragedy?

My grandmother’s stories, told to her by her grandmother. My father’s treatment, both by his own family for marrying my mother — not full blooded — and by the white community that treated him (and us) as untrustworthy. I’ve read the first-hand stories by my ancestral people. And I’ve read the first-hand stories by decent white soldiers who described this holocaust as the most horrible thing they had ever seen. This wasn’t just genocide; it was murder by torture. The Indian Hater’s armies were not kind enough just to shoot people. They dragged people barefoot and sick through snow and rain. They starved people, including babies. They let people die of diseases and debilitation. They sold peoples’ food and medicine. They turned a blind eye when locals raided what little the Indians had all along the Trail. They were treated as something less than animals. At least cattle were fed and given the dignity of dying for a purpose.

[samclem]

@Liberal

They were treated as something less than animals. At least cattle were fed and given the dignity of dying for a purpose.

At that time, cattle had a purpose, or at least a value. Indians did not.

My post should not be construed as approval of the treatment of anyone.

[_Ava]

@spoke-

There were a number of politicians who opposed the policy, notably Heny Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of New Hampshire, and Davy Crockett of Tennessee.

Thanks for the information. I wasn’t aware of that. I’ve obviously read a lot about abolitionists, and there were methodists in my family who were abolitionists, but I haven’t heard about white americans who supported indian rights. I’m embarrassed that I never heard of that supreme court case either.

I still think that being against slavery was more popular than being against westward expansion and expulsion of indians, but I’ve taken this thread far enough off track. (my last tangent: I’ve always wondered how much of the anti-slavery movement was for religious/moral reasons and how much was the north’s attempt to get a greater economic advantage over the south)
I suspect that when Jackson was put on currency, his key role in the War of 1812 (which the infant US almost lost) and his formation of the democratic party were foremost in the minds of the folks who selected him.